Posted on 11/21/2005 11:40:42 AM PST by blam
America prediscovered
By Norman Hammond, Archaeology Correspondent
THE VEXED question of American independence has arisen once again: not, in this case, in 1776, but before Columbus came to the New World.
It is generally accepted that the Amerindian population originated in Asia, probably more than 15,000 years ago, but whether there were subsequent transoceanic contacts and influences remains a matter of hot debate. Vikings from Maine to Minnesota, Romans crossing from Africa to Brazil, and Chinese and Japanese voyagers hitting the Pacific coastline have all been proposed. Now a new candidate for transpacific contact has reached a major academic journal.
Language and technology, specifically in canoe construction, indicate Polynesian impacts on southern California some 1,500 years ago, according to American Antiquity. Terry Jones and Kathryn Klar point out that “three words used to refer to boats, including the distinctive sewn-plank canoe used by Chumashan and Gabrielino speakers, appear to correlate with East Polynesian terms associated with woodworking and canoe construction”. These were adopted between AD400 and 800.
This is just the period, Jones and Klar say, when ocean exploration by Polynesians led to the discovery and settlement of Hawaii. They add that the Polynesians “had the capabilities of navigation, boat construction and sailing, as well as the cultural incentives to complete a one-way passage from Hawaii to the mainland.” But such passages may not all have been one-way: 15 years ago the presence of prehistoric sweet potatoes was confirmed on Mangaia in central Polynesia.
The sweet potato is a New World species: the new evidence suggests that Polynesians may have reached the Americas on several occasions, sometimes taking back useful resources, sometimes leaving good ideas, but in neither case having a major impact on the evolution of pre-Columbian civilisation.
American Antiquity Vol. 70: 457-484
I think we've posted on this subject previously.
I think a larger point can be made. While the vikings certainly landed in Canada, and while it is conceivable that others from the Old World encountered the New World at various times, they changed nothing. Columbus changed everything.
--truly the most important man of the millenium--
--truly the most important man of the millenium--
Columbus was a latecomer--everyone beat him to the New World. He just had a better press agent.
I have read that there are people in Siberia whose DNA indicates that they are descended from people who had once lived in North America and came back to Asia. They are haplotype Q3, which is distinctively American Indian.
"Columbus changed everything"
For some that is apparently reason enough to try to diminish his contribution.
What he had was an expansionist empire behind him with its own version of manifest destiny.
Well, I think it's reasonable to say that Columbus wasn't a very nice guy (among other things, a pathological liar, a murderer and an incompetent administrator), but it is not reasonable to diminish the profound importance of his discovery. It is difficult to overemphasize how monumentally important the 1492 discovery was.
I'm not really sure you can see the conquest of the New World as just a continuation of the Reconquista. They were distinctly separate events.
Oscar Wilde said something to the effect that America was discovered many times before Columbus, but it was always hushed up.
Try again, this time with reference to the fact that there are a lot of Chumash words recorded in the anthropological literature.
Sure, but I think that the Reconquista did create the mindset that enabled the conquest of the New World. That certitude that "God is On Our Side", and the missionary sense that drove them to bring Indian souls to the church (even if it killed them) I would argue can be seen as a direct legacy of the recent success of the Reconquista. Here's one website that makes the same point in a discussion of Columbus' first letter back to Ferdinand and Isabella:
"The conjunction of Verardus's panegyric with Columbus's first letter can perhaps be explained by reference to the epigram added at the end of the letter in its Latin translation by the bishop of Monte Peloso (at left). The crisis facing the Spanish monarchy was evident. The reconquista was over. Spanish society, which had evolved to support many substantial militant christian orders, was in danger of collapsing unless a new release could be found for the military. And, just by chance, just after Granada is conquered, Columbus returns with news of a rich and fertile land filled with heathans who are ripe for conversion and who lack the attributes of civilization."
http://www.usm.maine.edu/~maps/columbus/production.html
Surfin' USA
His timing was better. He landed a few decades after the printing press.
What about the Irish? Add them to the list of people who came to the 'new world" then went back and did not tell anyone about it.
Historical note: Later upon realizing that the ocean was deeper then anticipated, they gave up on their early idea of using stilts to walk to American and tried sailing)
Can we not have a discussion here w/o bring Ted Kennedy into every one?
;)
By todays standards there were very few nice guys back then. And your assessment of him was right on the mark. We just have to look at him as being a product of the times in which he lived. As an Irish-American I can rave on about Irish Monks getting here well before him....but a few stones and/or scratchings being left and nothing else do not make for a significant contribution. Thus, lets give him his due no matter what revisionists say.
Reminds me of the guy who invents a neat machine but does nothing with it. Then a businessman comes along and makes a commercial success of it - and gets the glory.
That's simply inaccurate. Columbus was an individual with enormous character flaws -- he was not merely a product of his times. That's one of the reasons he was brought back to Spain in chains. I'm not trying to detract from the significance of his discovery, but he was not a good man by any stretch.
I would add that I think it's beyond clear that the man was a certifiable genius.
I'm not really sure you can see the conquest of the New World as just a continuation of the Reconquista. They were distinctly separate events.
While you are right that they are distinct events, the fact is that with the fall of Granada in 1492 and the complete restoration of Roman Catholic hegemony in Iberia, the discovery of new lands populated by unevangelized heathen provided a convenient target for the religiously zealous, combined with the fact that the battle-hardened military leaders had a new area to focus on and a new place to carry on their adventures. It may be more accurate to say that the conquest of America was driven by the twin forces of religious zeal and desire to extend the economic empire, but the completion of the reconquest of Spain and the end of battling the Moorish infidel freed up military resources to go in a new direction.
While I was composing my response to Alter Kaker (see post #23), you beat me to the punch and said basically the same thing. I think we are in agreement.
Not too long ago I read a story....sort of alternate history of what might have happened if Columbus had made nice with the natives. In the story he stays longer, explores more, keeps an open mind, is gone for years and when he goes back to Spain it is leading an armada of hundreds of well armed ships manned by North American and Central American locals. To say that the Spanish were impressed woud be an understatement. LOL. Story ended at that point but you knew the next page would have been them conquering Spain. Great story for a flight of fancy, wish i could recall the author.
Was it PastWatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus by Orson Scott Card?
More than slightly unrealistic, but remember that in 1492 Tenochtitlan was the largest city in the world, and the Aztec Empire the largest and richest, far larger than Spain.
Yes. in the story he connected with first one, than another of large empires. Married local leaders daughter. Had a awakening of his own....and took it from there. Gave them technology and knowledge they did not have while using the best of what they had. Unrealistic? Oh yeah. But hey, it would not be entertaining science fiction if it were not somewhat unrealistic. I believe the driving force to his returning was his son who was left in the care of a monestary while he was away.
BINGO......thanks....I will get it again.
I would say a little of both. We need to remember why Europeans of that age were sending explorers on dangerous missions of discovery. One of their big motivations was to find a sea route around the Muslim world to Asia, in order to re-establish trade with Asia. When they found, along with it, two new unaligned continents, they understood the importance to them of adding the new world to the Christian sphere.
The questions (and theories) are intruiging but what's even more interesting is...
Why all of the questions? Why is America the place that can't discern her origins, her native peoples, or her name? She's like an adopted child who is compelled to search for her birth mother.
Egads this reminds me of the book Are You my Mother?.
Hosea 1:9-11
9 Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.
10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.
11 Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.
The questions (and theories) are intruiging but what's even more interesting is...
Why all of the questions? Why is America the place that can't discern her origins, her native peoples, or her name?
Pretty good evidence that migrants from Siberia discovered America, so they are the first Americans. The question is when. There is evidence for an early pre-glacial migration Siberia to eastern US, perhaps 25,000 years ago or more.
Another migration appears to have followed the glaciers from the Indonesian area, to Japan, along the Aleutians and down the Pacific coast to South American some 15,000 years ago.
The next migration was the ice-free corridor through Canada some 12,000 years ago.
The far north peoples, Eskimos, came much later.
There is also evidence for a lot of other contacts, which had less effect.
As far as the name, I think that is pretty well established.
So, what was your question again? And more importantly, what is the source of your question?
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
The Chinese were the first red-men and they’re coming back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
